Preliminary results of the austrian national registry with the novel iCover bridging stentgraft in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Bridging stentgrafts (BSGs) are one of the primary limiting factors regarding long-term results after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fEVAR). This study aims to report for the first time the outcome of a novel BSG called iCover from a national, multicentric retrospective database. METHODS: A cohort of 58 patients received 212 BSGs for the renovisceral arteries in fEVAR. Patients were followed-up clinically and with computed-tomography angiography. Study end points were mortality, occurrence of complications, technical success of the BSG implantation, defined as successful deployment with vessel patency and absence of type 1c, 3b, and 3c endoleak, and stability over the follow-up. RESULTS: Three BSG unrelated mortalities (5.1 %), four BSG unrelated major complications (6.8 %) and five minor complications (8.6 %) occurred. The technical success of iCover was 207/212 (97.6 %), target vessel patency was 100 % over a follow-up of 4.0 months, and no late BSG related endoleak was detected. In two cases, the BSG was dislodged from the balloon and could be parked in a safe position without further sequelae (0.9 %). CONCLUSION: The iCover represents a feasible BSG for fEVAR with an excellent safety profile and technical success rate in the early phase. Prudent post-dilatation and monitoring of the proximal and distal stent ends can potentially further improve outcome. Longer follow-up series are necessary.

Endovascular repair in type A aortic dissection: Anatomical candidacy for currently manufactured stent grafts and conceptual valve-carrying devices for an Endo-Bentall procedure.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular treatment has been suggested as an alternative for open surgery for type A aortic dissection, but current devices have severe anatomical limitations. This study assesses the computed tomography-based anatomical suitability of currently manufactured stent grafts as well as 2 embodiments of valve-carrying devices. METHODS: In a retrospective single-centre cohort of 200 consecutive ascending/arch operations between 2009 and 2018, a total of 112 patients with type A aortic dissections were identified and evaluated for endovascular candidacy based on the locations of the entries, the landing zone diameters/lengths and the supra-aortic vessel origins according to the anatomical instructions for use criteria of 6 commercially available (tubular, branched or fenestrated) stent grafts. Two suggested valve-carrying devices with inner branches or fenestrations for the coronary arteries and branches for the supra-aortic vessels were also evaluated. RESULTS: The anatomical feasibility for commercial stent grafts ranged from 4% to 21%. The main limitations were proximal landing zone diameter (considering oversizing <15%), length due to dilatation and an entry too close to the sinotubular junction. For the valve-carrying conduits, anatomical feasibility was between 31% and 80%, with the main limiting factors being the diameter of the aortic annulus and its distance to the coronary arteries. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomical applicability of currently manufactured stent grafts for the treatment of type A aortic dissection is limited mainly by the absence of a suitable proximal landing zone in the ascending aorta and might substantially be improved by anchoring in the aortic annulus using a valve-carrying device that uses either fenestrations or branches for the coronary arteries.

Endovascular Repair of Penetrating Thoracic Aortic Ulcers Using Tubular Stent Grafts Versus Stent Grafts With a Proximal Scallop.

PURPOSE: In penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs), limited data support tubular thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a viable treatment option. For treatment of more proximal PAUs, hybrid approaches and-more recently-scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) have been advocated. Outcomes of scTEVAR specifically for PAUs have not yet been reported. This study reports long-term outcomes for tubular and scTEVAR in PAUs and compares the safety profile in both cohorts regarding the significantly more proximal landing zone (LZ) for scTEVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study includes all nonacute patients treated for complicated PAU with scTEVAR and tubular TEVAR. Patient and PAU characteristics as well as procedural success, complication and reintervention rates, and all-cause and aortic mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 212 TEVAR procedures reviewed, 21 patients with tubular TEVAR and 19 patients with scTEVAR were included. Patient and PAU characteristics were similar, and LZ was significantly more proximal in the scTEVAR cohort (p=0.0001), with similar number and types of supra-aortic revascularization procedures. Clinical success was reached in all 40 patients (100%), and reintervention rate was 2/21 (9.5%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively. Over the mean follow-up of 63 (TEVAR) and 53 (scTEVAR) months, clinical success was stable in all patients with one (abdominal) aortic-related mortality in the scTEVAR cohort. CONCLUSION: Treatment of complicated PAUs with TEVAR as well as scTEVAR provides excellent and similar clinical success, stability of clinical success, and aortic survival with acceptable complication and reintervention rates. Scalloped TEVAR safely lengthens the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies. CLINICAL IMPACT: Treatment of asymptomatic complicated penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) provides excellent clinical success and acceptable complication and reintervention rates. More patients become amenable to endovascular treatment by including scalloped TEVAR (scTEVAR) as a means to safely lengthen the proximal sealing zone to address more proximal pathologies.

Applicability of endovascular branched and fenestrated aortic arch repair devices to treat residual type A dissection after ascending replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair of post-type A aortic dissection (PTAD) after open ascending replacement has recently been shown as safe and feasible, but with limited anatomic applicability because only one stent graft was evaluated. We assessed anatomic and clinical applicability of six commercially available branched/fenestrated stent grafts for endovascular repair of PTAD. METHODS: On postoperative CT scans of 101 patients, we measured the aortic diameter at the sinutubular junction, supra-aortic vessels, and descending aorta, as well as the distances between these landmarks along the outer curvature of the arch and the diameters of the supra-aortic vessel. Anatomic applicability was evaluated according to the instructions for use, clinical applicability with regard to supra-aortic and iliac arteries. Assessed devices were the Cook aortic double branch, Terumo double branch, Najuta fenestrated, Endospan Nexus, Medtronic Mona LSA, and Gore TAG thoracic branch. RESULTS: Single devices were anatomically and clinically applicable between 19 of 101 (Mona LSA) and 83 of 101 (Najuta) cases. Reasons for rejection varied considerably across devices. With all devices available, anatomic applicability was 97 of 101 and clinical applicability 95 of 101. Combinations of a fenestrated and a branched device showed the most favorable clinical applicability for a pair of two devices, ranging from 86 of 101 to 94 of 101. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic and clinical applicability of endovascular devices for the repair of PTAD is high for fenestrated and branched devices, and very high for the combination of fenestrated and branched devices. Manufacturers should amend specific device requirements for PTAD. Surgeons should emphasize the need for a sufficiently long and straight graft as a potential landing zone.

Branched versus fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the aortic arch: A multicenter comparison.

OBJECTIVE: For thoracic endovascular aortic repair of the arch, branched and fenestrated endografts are available with different limitations regarding anatomy and extent of the pathology. Comparisons are lacking in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 currently commercially available devices for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: In a retrospective, multicenter cohort study, a consecutive patient series treated with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair or fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies was assessed. Baseline characteristics, procedural fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and outcome were analyzed. Furthermore, the potential anatomic feasibility of the respective alternate device was assessed on the preoperative computed tomography scans. RESULTS: The branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohorts consisted of 20 and 34 patients, respectively, with similar comorbidities; indication was aneurysm in 65% and 79%, penetrating aortic ulcer in 20% and 9%, and dissection in the remaining procedures, respectively. Technical success was achieved in all but 1 patient. Perioperative mortality and major stroke rate were both 10% in branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and 0% and 3% in fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, respectively. During follow-up of 31 and 40 months, 1 branch occlusion occurred in the branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair cohort, and 2 late endoleaks occurred in the fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair group. One aortic death occurred. Although 35% of patients undergoing branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair were anatomically suitable for fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 91% of those undergoing fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair were suitable for branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair. CONCLUSIONS: Both branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair and fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair show excellent technical success and acceptable complication rates, whereas branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair tends toward higher morbidity, especially stroke rates. By offering fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair along with branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair, aortic centers could potentially lower complication rates and simultaneously still treat a wide range of anatomies.

Use of a Steerable Sheath for Completely Femoral Access in Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Compared to Upper Extremity Access.

PURPOSE: To compare bridging stent graft (BSG) implantation in downward oriented branches in branched endovascular aortic repair (bEVAR), using a commercially available steerable sheath from an exclusively femoral access (TFA) with traditional upper extremity access (UEA). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 7 patients with 19 branches in the TFA cohort received BSG insertion using the Medtronic Heli FX steerable sheath from a femoral access, and 10 patients with 32 branches in the UEA cohort from a brachial approach. Technical success, total intervention time, fluoroscopy time, branch cannulation time, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: Technical success was 19/19 branches in the TFA and 31/32 in the UEA cohort. The mean branch cannulation time was considerably shorter in the TFA group (17 vs. 29 min, p = 0.003), and total intervention time tended to be shorter (169 vs. 217 min, p = 0.176). CONCLUSION: Using a commercially available steerable sheath allowed successful cannulation of all branches in this cohort and was associated with significantly shorter branch cannulation times. Potentially, this technique can lower the stroke and brachial puncture site complication risk as well as reduce total intervention time and radiation dose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b, retrospective cohort study.

Structural failure in bridging stentgrafts for branched endovascular aneurysm repair: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To present a case series of spontaneous structural failure of bridging stentgrafts (BSGs) after branched endovascular aortic repair (bEVAR), as well as their failure types and their detection. While bEVAR is a safe and effective procedure, one main limitation is the reintervention rate associated with the BSGs. Structural failure of BSGs, defined as fabric disruption, stent fracture with leak or complete separation is a major cause for reinterventions and difficult to detect in computed tomography angiography (CTA). METHODS: From a multicenter bEVAR complication database, structural BSG failures were identified. Patient and BSG characteristics, detection mode, failure type, treatment and outcome were recorded and compared with bEVAR patients with intact BSGs. RESULTS: Twenty-three BSG failures were detected in 12 patients with only 43% directly identified in CTA, after a mean of 21.4 months after implantation. The BSGs were Advanta (n = 4), E-Ventus (n = 16) and BeGraft (n = 3) in 10 renal, 9 superior mesenteric, and 4 celiac branches. Religning with another BSG was successful in 20/22 cases, one BSG failure necessitated renal branch embolization (organ loss), and one mesenteric bypass surgery. Two reintervention-related mortalities occurred. CONCLUSION: Structural failure of BSGs is a serious limitation for bEVAR, which can result in high reintervention rates and serious complications. BSG failure typically occurs in single-layer types and events are clustered in patients. The necessary reinterventions carry serious morbidity and mortality. Since the use as BSG in bEVAR is off-label with all current BSG manufacturers, caution is advised regarding patient-informed consent.

Endovascular Stent-Graft Repair of the Ascending Aorta: Assessment of a Specific Novel Stent-Graft Design in Phantom, Cadaveric, and Clinical Application.

PURPOSE: To test a stent-graft specifically designed for the ascending aorta in phantom, cadaver, and clinical application, and to measure deployment accuracy to overcome limitations of existing devices. METHODS: A stent-graft has been designed with support wires to fixate the apices toward the inner curvature, thereby eliminating the forward movement of the proximal end which can happen with circumferential tip capture systems. The device was deployed in three aortic phantoms, and in four cadavers, deployment precision was measured. Subsequently, the device was implanted in a patient to exclude a pseudoaneurysm originating from the distal anastomosis after ascending aortic replacement. RESULTS: The stent-grafts were successfully deployed in all phantoms and cadavers. Deployment accuracy of the proximal end of the stent-graft was within 1 mm proximally and 14 mm distally to the intended landing zone on the inner curvature, and 2-8 mm distal to the intended landing zone on the outer curvature. In clinical application, the pseudoaneurysm could be successfully excluded without complications. CONCLUSION: The novel stent-graft design promises accurate placement in the ascending aorta. The differential deployment of the apices at the inner and outer curvatures allows deployment perpendicular to the aortic axis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: No level of evidence.